SoVote

May/3/23 8:45:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, that is a great question because, too often, big government comes in and ruins it. It consults with the wrong stakeholders. When consultations were being done, the government website said that there was a lot of emphasis put on online participants. We do not even know where those online participants were from. They could have been from Europe, for all we know. Would they have the best interests at heart for the land, for the ranchers, for the producers, but also for the species at risk there in the park? Absolutely not. The local people know what the balance is there. In this particular instance and many other instances, a hands-off approach by the government would be preferred. It would be way more beneficial, both to the species and to the producers.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/3/23 8:45:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-6. I think we are all pleased to speak to a bill that seeks to cut red tape, reduce delays and increase efficiency. When it comes to increased flexibility and efficiency, the answer is yes. We are there to support that. That is what we want to do. When it comes to reducing delays, the answer is yes. The member for Joliette said earlier that this bill was introduced in 2018 and that we are debating it in 2023. Someone asked why that was. I am tempted to tell them that this bill is moving through the House at a speed that is directly proportional to the speed at which this government takes action. We spend our time waiting for things to happen. I want to make a little aside about what is going on in the news. For months now, information has been coming out in dribs and drabs about potential foreign interference in our democratic process, and nothing is being done. The much-talked-about public inquiry will probably happen, but likely not before next year, because that is how slowly things move in the House. Fortunately, we are here. The opposition is here to pressure this government into taking action. We will do that today for that reason. Yes, we are here to support efficiency, but we will not support a lack of transparency. What we like is transparency. Some parts of Bill S‑6 have me concerned a bit. Others are obvious. There are, for example, changes to Innovation, Science and Economic Development to make it easier to withdraw a mediation application if a settlement is reached. I hope this will happen, as it seems obvious and is only normal. The best part is that it would clear the court backlogs. There is also the matter of having meters read through other means instead of getting a person to read them. I hope this will happen. There are other things, such as allowing interim authorizations under trade conditions. Earlier my colleagues were talking about trademarks and having greater efficiency and fluidity. I am okay with that. The details of this bill still need to be studied and that is where the committee comes in. There is less confusion for business corporations, co-operatives and not-for-profit organizations when it comes to the distinction between annual reports and annual statements. As we know, our good government asks people for so much paperwork that they get all mixed up. There is also the immigration issue. I would like to tell a story about someone from my riding. It is the story of a foreign worker who applied to renew her work permit. She had applied for permanent residency and was waiting. This Spanish-speaking woman was buried under paperwork, sometimes in English and other times in French, and she became very confused. In the meantime, she received her Quebec selection certificate, and, naively, she did not apply to renew her work permit. Let us put ourselves in her shoes. It is starting to become the norm to receive all kinds of paperwork, to have to deal with different levels of government, and to have different deadlines at each level. Sometimes, the second government is so slow that the first application has to be resubmitted. This will again cost money, because it is the fault of the second government. Of course that does not matter to the second government. The person must pay. Everyone knows that the second government I am referring to is obviously the federal government. The Bloc will have only one government, and it will be the right one. I was saying that because she had received her Quebec selection certificate, she did not apply to renew her work permit. A few days later, when she went to see her employer to celebrate, her employer realized that it was the wrong document and told her that she had to apply to renew her work permit. Unfortunately, the deadline for the renewal application was the day before. We are not talking six months prior. I do not want to get angry here, but it is hard not to. These people we are talking about, here in this disconnected Parliament, we met them in person and we saw them crying, sitting at our desk. It was not six months later, it was the next day, yet we could not get the renewal application accepted. If someone applies for a renewal while their permit is active, they can continue to work until they get the new one. It does not matter because the application has been submitted. However, if an individual applies after the deadline, too bad. They have to wait three months to get a new work permit. The person I am talking about had to live on charity for several weeks, in a G7 country. I will end my digression by saying that it is good to reduce wait times. My time is running out, and I still have lots I want to talk about. I have to talk about agriculture, but before I do, I must express my doubts about the part that deals with oil and gas. I am not sure why. Perhaps it is because of Bay du Nord, or because of the new offshore oil and gas exploration licenses. When I see the words “natural resources” and “oil” together, and that the requirement to publish information is being lifted, I have some serious doubts. There will be a lot of work to do. Is it because they want to sneak things past us? I will stop talking about oil now. I could talk about it for another 10 minutes, but I only have three and a half minutes left. With regard to the agricultural industry, when I hear that the government wants to facilitate the recognition of international standards, there are a few things that come to mind. I have had some traumatic experiences with the federal government since I became an MP three and a half years ago. One of them was the review of the thresholds for glyphosate, fungicide and herbicide residues, which the government tried to quietly sneak past us during the construction holiday one summer when the weather was hot and sunny. The Liberals thought that it would go unnoticed. I remember that we were dumbfounded. It was done without any kind of announcement or anything. What was even more shocking was that our farmers told us that they did not know where that measure came from, that they had never asked for it and that they were respecting the thresholds. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency told us that it was to align with international standards. I am pleased to see that my colleague from Beauce is here because he will be happy that I am talking about this. When I hear that we are going to align with international standards and increase the thresholds for pesticide and fungicide residue, the message that I am getting is that we are going to bring in poor quality products from other countries, as is too often the case. There is talk of reciprocity of standards. I am all for streamlining and adopting international standards to make trade easier, but I do not want us to lower these standards. I do not want us to fail to meet the expectations of our constituents, our consumers. People are expecting us to ensure quality. Our producers are proud, strong and efficient. They deliver quality. I do not want to undermine that because all of sudden someone decides to accept international standards. Carrots from Mexico may contain more pesticides than carrots that grow in Quebec. There is nonsense that does not appear in the official speeches, but exists on the ground daily. This is important. Aligning our standards can be useful, but we have to do so effectively and quickly, by relying on science and using the precautionary principle. I do not often hear anyone talk about the precautionary principle. Today, the Minister of Agriculture announced assurances that seeds created with gene editing would be monitored. That is good. We are pleased, but the monitoring will be done by the private sector with subsequent supervision by the state. I am less keen on that. I think that is the government's responsibility. I think we are capable of doing this effectively. We are in a situation where the state is not moving quickly enough, and we are going to let the public sector take action. I do not think that is the right thing to do. Last year, we had a problem with the approval of linuron, a product used when growing carrots. There was a small change in the formulation, and since Canada's study and review processes are so slow, the product was not approved. Our producers contacted us in a panic, told us they would not be able to grow their crop and that Quebeckers would be eating carrots from the United States, which uses the same product. Sometimes, we have to use common sense with regulations. I could probably keep talking about this for two or three hours, but I will stop now as my time has expired.

1557 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/3/23 8:56:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with my colleague on the issue of glyphosate spraying. I know that Quebec has banned it in the forests. In my region in northern Ontario, there is something terribly eerie about walking through a forest that is dead, where there are no sounds of bugs or birds. Driving up through the Temagami region, on Highway 11 and Highway 17, we hardly ever use bug spray for our windows anymore, because there are not that many bugs. The idea that glyphosate could be used to kill off everything in a forest after a cutover and said to be safe is deeply concerning. Given the release of “The Monsanto Papers” and international studies that have been done on the dangers, what does it mean when our forests in the north, in New Brunswick and in other regions are being subject to massive aerial spraying of glyphosate over our cutover areas?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/23 8:57:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, we would have to determine who is responsible for that spraying, but certainly, if what the member for Timmins—James Bay is reporting is true, it is very unfortunate. It means that things moved too fast and too much of the product was used. I am glad he asked me that question, because it enables me to talk about something I have not had time to address. In some places, we are being told that the minister will be allowed to enact practices from the private sector or from abroad by way of regulation and have them recognized. That may be fine, but it depends on how it is done. It must be properly studied. We cannot be careless.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/3/23 8:58:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question based on a classic speech by my colleague from Joliette. I hope I am giving proper attribution to this speech. We are going to play Jeopardy! I will read a quote, and my colleague will try to guess who said it and how it relates to Bill S-6. The quote says that consumers, the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Quebec government are asking for transparency. Organic farmers need to know the sources of their supply, and citizens have a right to know what is on their plates, including gene-edited products. We do not want to ban this technology. We want to regulate it, ensure that the public and farmers have that information and thus contribute to a better future for everyone. Who said that?

137 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/23 8:58:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, it is nice that we can have a little fun on an evening like this when we are working until midnight. I think the answer is the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

35 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/3/23 8:59:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, there is the matter of the intergenerational transfer of businesses. That is a very important issue in agriculture. Some legislative amendments were made to change the way capital gains are treated, which makes intergenerational transfers more equitable. Now, many businesses are saying that this transfer has be done gradually. Sometimes, the parents let their children buy shares in the company or family farm bit by bit. That is something that many businesses asked for, but unfortunately, the law does not allow for that practice right now. I am wondering whether the member would like comment on improving the business climate, particularly for family farms.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/23 9:00:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, succession planning is very important. I thank my colleague for raising this subject. Yes, some latitude must be given. It is not all black and white. There are grey areas. The bill allows for a certain transition, but the deadlines are indeed restricted. I think there could be more flexibility in that regard. The government was worried about tax evasion. I would like to say to the members of this government that if they want to prevent tax evasion, they should go back and listen to the speech given tonight by my colleague from Joliette. They will learn a lot, and they will find out where the money is and how tax evasion is really happening.

118 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/3/23 9:00:51 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for York—Simcoe. I would remind members that if they plan to speak, they need to stand to be recognized.

26 words

Simcoe
Speak

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

May/3/23 9:01:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I was stuck to the floor with red tape. I do not know who sat here before me. It is everywhere here in Ottawa. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

40 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/3/23 9:01:22 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the member about the red tape. That is a prop and I would ask him not to use that. The hon. member for York—Simcoe.

29 words

Mr. Scot Davidson

May/3/23 9:01:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I do not know who sat here before me, but it is everywhere. They were doing their best to cut through it. These days, we would need a chainsaw to cut through the red tape in Ottawa. With Bill S-6, the Liberals have brought nail clippers. As Canada's shadow minister for red-tape reduction, I am pleased to contribute to this important debate tonight. Bill S-6 proposes to make 46 modest changes to update and modernize 29 acts, affecting 12 different federal departments and agencies. They are minor at best and, unfortunately, do practically nothing to address the burden of red tape facing Canadians. At its core, reducing red tape is about making government work well for our country's citizens. It is not about deregulation for its own sake. It is about making sure that Canada's regulations do not hamper our citizens' ability to innovate and improve. It is also about ensuring that our country is globally competitive and that we are positioned to increase the prosperity of future generations of Canadians. Fundamentally, Canadians just want to go about their lives and conduct their business without complicated processes and roadblocks put in place by government departments, bureaucrats and consultants. These are the people who act as gatekeepers to stop anything from getting done in this country and prevent anything from being built. Red tape overseen by these government gatekeepers is stifling Canadians. It cripples innovation and competitiveness and limits productivity and economic growth. This is not some niche issue. Any Canadian who has ever had to fill out a government form knows how hard and frustrating red tape can be. Sadly, under the Liberals, red tape has gotten worse. The insignificant changes proposed in Bill S-6 amount to just a drop in the ocean when we consider how onerous the Liberals' red-tape regime has become. Over the past eight years, the Liberal government has increased public service spending by 53%, costing taxpayers an additional $21 billion. Of course, this has not resulted in better outcomes or better service delivery for Canadians. Instead, Canadians continue to face endless delays, a greater regulation burden and more red tape. According to the Federation of Independent Business, red tape costs Canadians nearly $11 billion a year. It is unbelievable. There is also a great social cost. The amount of time Canadians spend on regulatory compliance continues to be significant. This causes great stress, especially for small businesses and vulnerable Canadians. This year, the CFIB awarded the Liberals a C, which is a failing grade. It noted that the government does not accurately measure the impact of federal regulations on individuals or properly report on what progress has been made to reduce red tape. This has consequences for our citizens and for our economy. Canada is ranked 53rd out of 140 countries in terms of the burden of government regulations. Canada performs far worse than comparable countries. We are predicted to be the worst-performing advanced economy to 2030 and for decades afterward. The ease of doing business index, which measures regulatory efficiencies, has seen Canada continue to decline, going from fourth in 2007 to 23rd in 2020. These metrics all tell the same story. As a result of Canada's onerous red tape, our country's economic reputation has been tarnished. Delays and red tape continue to drive away foreign investment. The global index measuring foreign investment considers Canada as a whole to be more restrictive when it comes to foreign investment than all other OECD countries, except for Iceland, Mexico and New Zealand. The amount of foreign direct investment into Canada as a percentage of the GDP remains well below that of such countries as Sweden, Germany and Spain. Unfortunately, addressing red tape, improving economic growth and promoting foreign investment have not been priorities for the federal Liberal government. According to research conducted by the Library of Parliament, the government has never sought to count the total number of federal regulations. However, there are at least 4,883 in the Consolidated Regulations of Canada alone. With only 46 slight changes, the measures proposed in Bill S-6 barely scratch the surface of the regulatory reform we need in Canada. The lack of action also applies to the overall approach of the government. It is telling that I do not have a direct counterpart in the Liberal cabinet. There are ministers responsible for red-tape reduction in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, as well as across many other jurisdictions around the world, but this is not the case federally. Instead, the task of reducing red tape remains a footnote and an afterthought to the many other responsibilities of the Treasury Board president. Again, this is a recurring theme. As a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, I routinely see the lack of attention red tape receives from the government. It has become commonplace for Liberal ministers to ignore repeated requests by the committee to address problematic or outdated regulations and red tape within their portfolios. I think my hon. colleague from Mirabel spoke to this tonight. In many cases, these requests have been outstanding for years, with no attempt to fix the regulations, even when they continue to affect and impact Canadians. This is unacceptable. Reducing red tape should not be a partisan issue, yet the Liberals seem to think that it is the goal to have more regulations and that a bigger, more bloated government is always better. They do this without any regard for the negative consequences of red tape for Canadians or whether objectives or outcomes are being met. The Conservative approach to reducing red tape could not be more different. It involves chainsaws, not nail clippers. We believe there is a better way than token measures and insignificant actions, such as those we see in Bill S-6. Canada's Conservatives are committed to cutting red tape. We will prioritize plain-language laws that will eliminate bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and make it easier for Canadians to fill out government forms and access government services. We will simplify the tax system, cap government spending and introduce a pay-as-you-go law requiring an equal amount of savings for any new government expenditures. We will also address the housing crisis and support businesses looking to expand by removing big city gatekeepers and NIMBY politicians. These are the people who put up red tape and barriers to block any expansion of our housing supply. These are concrete measures that will make life more affordable and put Canadians back in control of their lives. After all, it is the government that is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. There is no doubt that many regulations need to be addressed far beyond the scope of Bill S-6. Much more needs to be done to cut red tape in this country to support Canadians and encourage economic growth.

1162 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/3/23 9:11:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would also take this opportunity to thank him for his bill about financial protections for vegetable producers, which we will be happy to consider soon. My colleague talked about regulations and small cosmetic changes that are inadequate. We need to be more thorough. I would like to give him the opportunity to talk about regulations that apply to temporary foreign workers, which we talk about all the time. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we must have raised this issue six times in reports. There has been so much talk and so little action that it has become a joke. I would like my colleague to comment on that. Can he mention one or two quick and easy changes that could be made to improve the lives of people and producers?

145 words

All Topics

Mr. Scot Davidson

May/3/23 9:12:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I am so happy that my hon. colleague is supporting my bill for the financial protection of fresh fruit and vegetable farmers. As the hon. member knows, I represent the soup and salad bowl of Canada, so farming issues are important. I can think of two or three farms in my riding that have now had to hire full-time people just to navigate the paperwork that the temporary foreign worker program has. People talk about cutting regulations. This is not about that. This is about making this country more efficient. I can think of a cucumber farmer in my riding, for example, who has had three different labels in the last three years. Why does this matter to Canadians? It increases the cost of the product, it costs farmers and it costs the country. We have to become more efficient.

143 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/3/23 9:13:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have with Bill S-6 is that a lot of the amendments focus on eliminating paper. I agree with this to some degree, but I also recognize, as a person who represents a more rural and remote riding, that not all people have digital access. As the seniors critic for the NDP, I also recognize that a lot of seniors contact my office requesting paper copies of information or forms from different federal departments. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on that. Does he agree that we need to work with our systems to ensure there is access to information for people who do not have digital access?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Scot Davidson

May/3/23 9:13:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, yes, I do. This is about common sense. I have seniors in my riding as well who are not well versed in emailing, and they do require paper copies of things. I think we can become efficient to give those people what they require and have an and/or part to it. We still require some things to be done via fax and some things to be done via paper, and some things are done electronically. We have to have a system where there is compromise so that it works for the people, works for Canadians and becomes more efficient.

102 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)

May/3/23 9:14:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, as my colleague indicated, there is no counterpart for a minister of reducing red tape on the government side. One initiative I am impressed with that the shadow minister has undertaken is a website where Canadians can submit their ideas for reducing red tape. It is www.cutredtape.ca. Can he share one or two good ideas he has seen as a result of this initiative?

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Scot Davidson

May/3/23 9:15:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, if anyone is watching tonight, they can go to www.cutredtape.ca if they have experienced red tape. I think this is about the frustration people have. A business owner reached out to me just last week and said they own a chain of duty-free stores. The government came in and said they had to put all kinds of different labels with ingredients and nutritional facts on all their products in the store to comply with Canadian laws. The funny thing is that everything is for export. None of it is being consumed in Canada or being taken into Canada. It is all leaving the country. Why would we have these label requirements for those outlets? These are common-sense things we need to address.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

May/3/23 9:16:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, when I first thought I wanted to get into politics I was about 14 years old, and it was always my dream to speak to regulatory modernization. I was one of those kids who said that if I could make it to Parliament to talk about regulatory modernization, I would know I really succeeded in life. I want to talk about this, because I think it is an important issue for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When I meet with farmers in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, which is the number one producer of economic growth for our GDP, and when I speak to small businesses, I ask them, “What things make your lives more difficult?” Members would think the farmers might say they have to get up at 5 a.m. and have to do this and that, and that there are always more things for them to do than they have time for. However, what the farmer will say is that the regulatory and tax burdens in this country keep them up at night and take up so much of their time. The same thing is said when we talk to small businesses. I think the real disconnect is that when regulations get passed by the Liberals, they assume that somehow, much like in a minister's office, 1,000 people will be there to make sure someone checks box A, circles things in the right direction and does all these kinds of things. However, most small businesses, which are the driver of economic activity in this country and truly the lifeblood of the Canadian economy, are very small organizations. It is often one or two people working hard to understand what the regulatory burden is for their business, on top of trying to make their business successful and profitable. That is the challenge we have all across this country. I want to divert momentarily, because the other big thing they talk about besides regulations is the carbon tax. The carbon tax is such a punishing thing for Canadian businesses, especially in the farming sector. I had the opportunity to visit farms on our last break week. I met with a number of farmers and I asked them, “How much carbon tax did you end up paying in the last year?” The first farm I went to said they paid $17,000 in carbon taxes. Can members imagine how much this impacts that family's bottom line? That is $17,000 that they do not have for investing in a new combine, for investing in more sustainable agricultural practices or for putting food on the table. These are the kinds of difficult things being experienced. However, when we add to that the difficulty of complying with regulations from across this country, it is a burden wearing down Canadians. That is why it was so great to hear my colleague talk about the plan to cut red tape. It is something a Conservative government would absolutely do. One interesting thing is that the bill would make 46 slight changes to regulations. I had the opportunity to look at the Government of Canada's forward regulatory plan for 2021-23. While the bill is going to nibble around the edges of 46 slight changes, the plan is to bring in 270 new regulations. This is exactly the problem: We are going to nibble around these 46 things and then bring in 270 new ones. Now, I am not very good math, but I would say that is approximately 234 more regulations going in than are potentially coming out, and that is how this government works. Somehow it thinks that adding to regulatory burden, making things more complex and more difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to understand and implement, is the way forward for economic success. However, we know it is not, and we see that in projections for Canada's economic growth going forward. We are continuously moving down. We are moving down on the productivity scale as well. We are becoming less and less productive. I suggest that people are less productive because they are spending more time in the office trying to navigate through the myriad of red tape regulations than they are in putting productive effort into their businesses. This is the challenge we have after eight years of the Liberal government: more regulations, more all the time. The other problem with the regulatory process from the government is that it is regulate first and ask questions after. It does not do the hard work of seeing whether there is a way to promulgate regulations that would not be so burdensome and that would not be so hard for businesses to comply with. I am going to speak very briefly to one example of that: film plastic regulations. The Government of Canada just said it thinks we should get to 60% recyclable content there. However, the technology does not exist. It is not even close to existing. The government is therefore bringing forward a regulation, which may be well-intentioned, to add recycled content into plastic film, but it has not taken the time to figure out whether or not it is actually possible. What does that do? Imagine being in a business and finding out that the business now has to comply with this regulation, but its own scientists and its own R and D are saying they have no idea how this is possible. This is just one tiny example going on across the country from coast to coast to coast. Why is it so hard for the government, if it is going to bring in a new regulation, to consult with businesses that are going to be affected before it brings in the regulation? That is how to find a path forward if it is going to bring in a new regulation. Instead, what the government does is it decides the path forward, and businesses need to comply whether they can or cannot. If they cannot, that is too bad; they will just leave the country. This is incredibly disturbing to me as a way to move forward with regulatory reform. Another thing I want to talk about is giving the Minister of Transport the ability to make interim orders. This is a very broad discretion being granted to the Minister of Transport. We know the Minister of Transport. He is the jolly fellow who has been governing the country with the chaos at our airports over the last two years. I do not know about other people in this chamber, but air travel in this country is not an enjoyable experience anymore. If our flight is on time, which is rare, there is some kind of chaos at the airport where we are landing, and we are sitting for an extended period of time. In my own recent experience when flying from Toronto to Ottawa, I showed up at the airport, got to the gate when it was time to board and then was told the pilots did not show up. Did they only know that 15 minutes before? Then there was a problem with the plane. Then the crew timed out. Then the flight was delayed even more. This is happening all over the place, and the number of complaints being filed with respect to this is astronomical. My submission is that the last minister who should be getting any authority to make new regulations on anything is the minister who has governed during the chaos at our airports. It is all across the transportation sector too. This affects our supply chains. We know that part of the cost of living crisis in this country is a result of challenges with our supply chain. Who could fix these things? Maybe the Minister of Transport could, but clearly he cannot. Why are we going to give the Minister of Transport any more authority to make things worse than they already are in this country? There is a bright future, though. The Conservative Party has promised that if any new regulation comes in, a regulation has to go out. This would not be 46 minor changes while bringing in 270 new regulations. It is going to be a bright new future. We are going to consult with businesses. We are going to reduce red tape and get the economy of Canada moving.

1409 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/3/23 9:26:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Uqaqtittiji, first of all, I do not know what the education system is like in the member's riding of Dufferin—Caledon, but simple mathematics is what should be expected in Bill S-6. I know that this legislation covers about 30 pieces of legislation to try to help reduce red tape. I wonder if the member agrees that, because the bill covers at least 30 pieces of legislation and the summary says, “repeal or amend provisions that have, over time, become barriers to innovation and economic growth”, the bill is actually a good way to make sure we reduce red tape.

105 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 190